Cargando…

Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs

BACKGROUND: Influenza A virus (IAV) is an important pathogen in pigs that affects productivity and has important public health implications because of its zoonotic nature. Surveillance is central to the control of influenza, however, detection of IAV infections can be challenging in endemically infe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge, Alvarez, Julio, Culhane, Marie, Nirmala, Jayaveeramuthu, Cano, Jean Paul, Torremorell, Montserrat
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6376652/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30764815
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0
_version_ 1783395598949416960
author Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge
Alvarez, Julio
Culhane, Marie
Nirmala, Jayaveeramuthu
Cano, Jean Paul
Torremorell, Montserrat
author_facet Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge
Alvarez, Julio
Culhane, Marie
Nirmala, Jayaveeramuthu
Cano, Jean Paul
Torremorell, Montserrat
author_sort Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Influenza A virus (IAV) is an important pathogen in pigs that affects productivity and has important public health implications because of its zoonotic nature. Surveillance is central to the control of influenza, however, detection of IAV infections can be challenging in endemically infected herds with low prevalence of infection. METHODS: In groups of suckling (18–21 days of age) and growing (35–45 days of age) pigs, we compared various sampling approaches to detect, isolate and sequence IAV using individual (nasal swabs, nasal wipes and oropharyngeal swabs), group (oral fluids, surface wipes and sow udder skin wipes) and environmental (airborne particles deposited on surfaces and air samples) sampling approaches. All samples were tested by IAV rRT-PCR and a subset was used for virus isolation and direct sequencing. RESULTS: In general, environmental and group samples resulted in higher odd ratios (range = 3.87–16.5, p-value < 0.05) of detecting a positive sample by rRT-PCR compared to individual pooled samples, except for oropharyngeal swabs (OR = 8.07, p-value < 0.05). In contrast, individual samples were most likely to yield a viral isolate by cell culture. Oropharyngeal swabs in suckling pigs (78.4%), and nasal swabs (47.6%) or nasal wipes (45%) in growing pigs, and udder wipes in lactating sows (75%) were the preferred samples to obtain an isolate. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that group and environmental sampling strategies should be considered in influenza surveillance programs in particular if the goal is just to detect infection. This study provides new information on sampling approaches to conduct effective influenza surveillance in pigs and identifies udder wipes from lactating sows as a novel sample type that offers a convenient, cheap and sensitive manner to monitor IAV in litters prior to weaning. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6376652
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63766522019-02-27 Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge Alvarez, Julio Culhane, Marie Nirmala, Jayaveeramuthu Cano, Jean Paul Torremorell, Montserrat BMC Vet Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Influenza A virus (IAV) is an important pathogen in pigs that affects productivity and has important public health implications because of its zoonotic nature. Surveillance is central to the control of influenza, however, detection of IAV infections can be challenging in endemically infected herds with low prevalence of infection. METHODS: In groups of suckling (18–21 days of age) and growing (35–45 days of age) pigs, we compared various sampling approaches to detect, isolate and sequence IAV using individual (nasal swabs, nasal wipes and oropharyngeal swabs), group (oral fluids, surface wipes and sow udder skin wipes) and environmental (airborne particles deposited on surfaces and air samples) sampling approaches. All samples were tested by IAV rRT-PCR and a subset was used for virus isolation and direct sequencing. RESULTS: In general, environmental and group samples resulted in higher odd ratios (range = 3.87–16.5, p-value < 0.05) of detecting a positive sample by rRT-PCR compared to individual pooled samples, except for oropharyngeal swabs (OR = 8.07, p-value < 0.05). In contrast, individual samples were most likely to yield a viral isolate by cell culture. Oropharyngeal swabs in suckling pigs (78.4%), and nasal swabs (47.6%) or nasal wipes (45%) in growing pigs, and udder wipes in lactating sows (75%) were the preferred samples to obtain an isolate. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that group and environmental sampling strategies should be considered in influenza surveillance programs in particular if the goal is just to detect infection. This study provides new information on sampling approaches to conduct effective influenza surveillance in pigs and identifies udder wipes from lactating sows as a novel sample type that offers a convenient, cheap and sensitive manner to monitor IAV in litters prior to weaning. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6376652/ /pubmed/30764815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge
Alvarez, Julio
Culhane, Marie
Nirmala, Jayaveeramuthu
Cano, Jean Paul
Torremorell, Montserrat
Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs
title Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs
title_full Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs
title_fullStr Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs
title_short Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs
title_sort comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6376652/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30764815
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0
work_keys_str_mv AT garridomantillajorge comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs
AT alvarezjulio comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs
AT culhanemarie comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs
AT nirmalajayaveeramuthu comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs
AT canojeanpaul comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs
AT torremorellmontserrat comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs